47 155. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of association provided for in Article 16(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 156. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of international obligations which causes damage purports the duty to make adequate reparations.205 Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has adopted decisions in this regard.206 157. Considering the partial acknowledgment of liability made by the State, the considerations on such acknowledgment and the violations to the American Convention declared in the previous chapters, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s judicial precedents with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,207 the Court will proceed to analyze the demands presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the allegations of the State, in order to determine the measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. A) Injured Party 158. The representatives requested the Court to consider Mrs. Blanca Jeannette KawasFernández as beneficiary of the right to reparation in her capacity as direct victim of the violations alleged in the instant case. Furthermore, they identified as victims and beneficiaries of the reparations “[her] closest relatives, due to the violations they suffered throughout the years,” to wit: Blanca Fernández, mother; Jacobo Kawas-Cury, deceased father; Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, son; Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, daughter; Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández, sister; Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández, brother, and Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández, brother. Similarly, the Commission identified the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, including Mr. James Gordon Watt (alleged husband), as beneficiaries of the requested reparations. 159. The State did not file any challenge to the list of beneficiaries proposed by the representatives and the Commission, but “f[ound] the relationships […] should be proven through the appropriate documents” (supra para. 28). In that regard, the State accepted “to provide reparation to the individuals to be designated in the appropriate Judgment as entitled to reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage”. 205 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para 395; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para 404. 206 Article 63(1) of the Convention states that: [i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [this] Convention, the Court shall rule that [the] party harmed be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted that breach of such a right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 207 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra note 205, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 397; Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 406.